Google is winning on every AI front
811–820 of 851 posts
Re: Google is winning on every AI front
#812Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good, maybe Youtube will finally recommend something to me I actually want to watch.
Personally, I've never actually heard this problem. Do you watch industry-specific videos in a non-anonymized browser session enough? Once you watch, like, 5 videos on topics you care about, the algorithm has no shortage of astute suggestions.
The problem with that is, I have more than one interest. So any algorithm will make a salad out of that and never hit me with what I want. Even if this particular session was about topic X they will still fill it with proposals from yesterday's topic Y, or extrapolate from them to topic Z I don't care, and so on. Mostly useless either way.
Re: Google is winning on every AI front
#813Re: Google is winning on every AI front
#814Re: Google is winning on every AI front
#815Re: Google is winning on every AI front
#816Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the king/ceo is great, autocracy works well. When a fool inevitably takes the throne, disaster ensues. I can't say for sure that a different system of government would have saved Kodak. But when one man's choices result in disaster for a massive organization, I don't blame the man. I blame the structure that laid the power to make such a mistake on his shoulders.
that seems weird. Why hold up one person as being great while not also holding up one person as not? If my leader led me into battle and we were victorious, we'd put it on them. if they lead us to ruin, why should I blame the organizational structure that led to them getting power as the culprit instead of blaming them directly?
I'm not saying you'd be wrong to blame the bad leader - just that blaming them doesn't achieve much.
The CEO takes the blame, the board picks a new one (Unless the CEO has special shares that make them impossible to dismiss), and we go on hoping that the king isn't an idiot this time.
My reading of history is that some people are fools - we can blame them for their incompetence or we can set out to build foolproof systems. (Obviously, nothing will be truly foolproof. But we can build systems that are robust against a minority of the population being fools/defectors.)
Re: Google is winning on every AI front
#817[flagged]
Re: Google is winning on every AI front
#818[flagged]
Re: Google is winning on every AI front
#819Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenAI doesn't have a business model. They sell dollars for 75 cents. If push comes to shove, they will sell your data to make ends meet. What about OpenAI screams stability and trust? Is it all their leadership leaving after countless cases of drama? Is it a CEO that oozes snake oil?
> OpenAI doesn't have a business model It seems their revenue in 2024 exceeded $3B. > they will sell your data to make ends meet I’m not sure they can do that without breaching the contract. My employer pays for ChatGPT enterprise I use. Another thing, OpenAI has very small amount of my data because they only have the stuff I entered to their web service. Google on the other hand tracks people across half of the inte…
> It seems their revenue in 2024 exceeded $3B.
With a loss of $5B. A viable business model needs more than revenue. It also needs profit.
It is not unusual for a business with visions for profitability to accept losses for a while to get there, but OpenAI does not seem to have such vision. They seem to be working off the old tech model of "If we get enough users we'll eventually figure something out" – which every other time we've heard that has ended up meaning selling user data.
Maybe this time will be different, but every time we hear that...
Re: Google is winning on every AI front
#820Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes corporate leaders do chase hype and they also believe in magic. I think companies implement DEI initiatives for different reasons than hype though. Many are now abandoning DEI ostensibly out of fear due to the change in U.S. regime.
A case can be made for diversity, but the fact that all the big companies were adopting DEI at the same time made it hype. I personally know an engineering manager who would scoff at MLK Day, but in 2020 starting screaming about how it wasn’t enough and we needed Juneteenth too. AI isn’t hype at Nvidia, and DEI isn’t hype at Patagonia. But tech industry-wide, they’re both hype.
I think many were rightly adopting DEI initiatives in an environment post me-too and post George Floyd. I don’t think it was driven by hype but more a reaction to the environment which heightened awareness of societal injustices. Awareness led to all sorts of things - conversation, compassion, attempts to do better in society and the workplace, and probably law suits. You can question how motivated corporations were to adopt DEI initiatives but I think it’d be wrong to say it was driven by hype.